DR. IMORO KUBOR & ANOR V HON. SERIAKE HENRY DICKSON & ORS

SUBJECT MATTER

ELECTION PETITION/EVIDENCE – SECONDARY EVIDENCE OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT

MEANING OF AN INJUNCTION

WHAT DETERMINES THE ADMISSIBITY OF EVIDENCE

ADMISSIBILITY OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT – ADMISSIBILITY OF AN INTERNET PRINT OUT OF A NEWSPAPER

POWER OF THE COURT TO EXPUNGE EVIDENCE ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION

NATURE AND CHARACTER OF AN APPEAL – WHETHER IT CAN BE CHANGED

IMPORTANCE OF PUBLICATION OF CANDIDATES NAME BY INEC

CHANGE OF CANDIDATE WHO’S NAME HAS BEEN SENT TO INEC

INTERIM ORDERS – STATUS OF INTERIM ORDERS

EVIDENCE OF NOMINATION AND SPONSORSHIP OF A CANDIDATE BY A POLITICAL PARTY

“Evidence of nomination and sponsorship of a candidate by a political party lies in the declaration of the winner of the party’s primary election conducted to elect the party’s candidate for the general election in question coupled with political party  forwarding the names of the said elected candidate to the 3rd respondent as its nominated candidate for the election”  PER ONNOGHEN, JSC

CLick here to view case

PROF .STEVE TORKUMA UGBA & ORS .V. 1.HON.GABRIEL TORWUA SUSWAN & ORS.

SUBJECT MATTER.

ELECTION PETITION

Interpretation of statutes-interpretation of section 285(6) of the CFRN (1999 as amended)-Section 36 of the CFRN (1999 as amended /Preliminary Objection/Jurisdiction of courts/Academic issue.

 

“My Lords, the courts are created and empowered to adjudicate on cases, applying the law as it is but certainly not as it ought to be. That is a function of yet another arm of the government. The law is made by and for man, not man for law. If a law made by the people for the people is creating hardship for the people, let the people sit down and do something about it through its law makers. It is not for the court in performing its function of interpreting that law to alter or amend it.” Per Olu Ariwooola, JSC.

Click here to view case

SENATOR JOHN AKPANUDOEDEHE V GODSWILL OBOT AKPABIO

SUBJECT-MATTER

ELECTION PETITION

ELECTION TRIBUNAL

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

FAIR HEARING

LIMITATION OF TIME

“When the Constitution provides a limitation period for the hearing of a matter (in this case 180 days) the right to fair hearing is guaranteed by the courts within 180 days. Once 180 days elapsed the hearing of the matter fades away along with any right to fair hearing. There is no longer a live petition left. There is nothing to be tried even if a retrial order is given. It remains extinguished forever.”

Per Bode Rhodes-Vivour J.S.C.

Click here to view case

CHIEF GREAT OVEDJE OGBORU & Anor V. DR EMMANUEL EWETAN UDUAGHAN & 2 Ors

SUBJECT-MATTER

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

APPEAL

ELECTION PETITION

JUDGMENT

JURISDICTION

“I find support in several decisions of this court that an appellant can file two [multiple] notices of appeal, more so, when our court Rules do not prohibit that.”

Per I.T. Muhammad J.S.C.

“On the issues for determination, it is the law and practice that where the complaint is not that the issues do not flow from the grounds of appeal or that the issues proliferate, an appellate court accepts them to be valid and will tolerate its ill-drafting in order to ensure that justice is done to the parties.”

Per I.T. Muhammad J.S.C.

Click here to view case

OCHEJA EMMANUEL DANGANA V. HON. ATAI AIDOKO ALI USMAN

SUBJECT MATTER

ELECTION PETITION

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – NATURE OF

JURISDICTION – COMPETENCY OF COURT

“A preliminary objection to the hearing of an election petition appeal may be raised on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal or that time within which to hear a matter had since run out” PER RHODES-VIVOUR JSC

Click here to view case

MALLAM ABUBAKAR ABUBAKAR & 2Ors V. SAIDU USMAN NASAMU & 5 Ors

SUBJECT-MATTER

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

APPEAL

ELECTION PETITION

JURISDICTION

“So in relation to appeals on election matter, it is clear and I hereby hold that there are two courts constitutionally clothed with final jurisdiction to hear and determine same. These are:-

(1)  The Court of Appeal in relation to National and State Houses of Assembly election petitions, and,

(2)  The Supreme Court of Nigeria in respect of decisions of the Court of Appeal on the question as to whether any person has been validly elected to the Office of Governor or Deputy Governor under the constitution.”

Per Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen J.S.C.

Click here to view case

 

CHIEF FELIX AMADI & ANOR. V INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION& 2 ORS.

SUBJECT-MATTER

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ELECTION PETITION-SECTION 285(7) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION (as amended)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ELECTION PETITION-JURISDICTION-RIGHT TO FAIR-HEARING

“It is very important to note that the provisions of Section 285(7) supra does not deny an appellant the right to fair-hearing, just like every statute of limitation. It merely gives all parties and the court a time frame within which parties are to exercise their right to fair hearing in a relevant appeal. If for whatever reason the appeal is not heard within the allotted time frame it cannot be said that an appellant affected thereby has been denied his right to fair hearing.”

Click here to view case

BRIG. GEN. MOHAMMED BUBA MARWA V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)

SUBJECT MATTER

ELECTION PETITION

ELECTION PETITION – EXTENT/EFFECT OF AN ANNULLED ELECTION

ELECTION PETITION – MEANING OF ELECTION

ELECTION PETITION – NATURE OF OATH OF ALLEGIANCE VIS-À-VIS THE ELECTION INTO OFFICE

CONSTITUTION – SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – MEANING OF ‘GOLDEN RULE’ OF INTERPRETATION

NOTABLE PRONOUNCEMENT – NATURE OF GOVERNANCE

“The order of court in an annulled election has no retrospective effect on the tenure and actions taken by the governor before the nullification order.  Therefore both the pre-nullification tenure and acts flowing from it are recognizable by law as the valid legal effect of the annulled election. The period spent in office as governor by the person concerned must count as part of his tenure.” PER ADEKEYE, JSC

Click here to view case

MRS. MARGAREY OKADIGBO V. PRINCE JOHN OKECHUKWU EMEKA AND 2 ORS

SUBJECT MATTER

ELECTION PETITION – JURISDICTION

ELECTION PETITION – JURISDICTION – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – LOCUS STANDI

THE NEED FOR A PARTY TO BE CONSISTENT IN ITS PLEADINGS

STATUS OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL IN RESPECT OF APPEALS ARISING FROM THE NATIONAL AND STATE HOUSES OF ASSEMBLY ELECTION PETITIONS

STATUS OF A TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF PRE ELECTION MATTERS

“it is settled law that a party ought to be consistent in the case he pursues and not as it were, spring surprises on the opposite party from one stage to another. This is so as an appeal is regarded as a continuation of the original action rather than as an inception of a new suit. And so in appeals parties are normally confined to their case as pleaded in the court of first instance” (in this case the trial tribunal). Per C.M. Chukwuma-Eneh, J.S.C.

Click here to view case

HON. BIMBO ADEPOJU & 9 ORS V. OLONA YINKA &12 ORS V OYSIEC & 2 ORS.

SUBJECT MATTER

ELECTION PETITION

COURTS – DUTY OF COURTS TO JEALOUSLY GUARD THEIR JURISDICTION.

‘ The principle re-emphasised in these cases is that the court must at all times jealously guard its jurisdiction to hear a case to its conclusion and determine, on the merits, the rights and obligations of the contending parties by either granting or refusing the reliefs claimed; that it should avoid the temptation of terminating a case at the instance of a defendant on the allegation that by reason of some intervening circumstances during the prudency of the case, the court no longer has jurisdiction-and this is particularly so where the rights and obligations sought to be enforced are still available’ F.F Tabai, JSC.

 Click here to view case